netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/1] bridge: return error code when deleting Vlan

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:03:30 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/1] bridge: return error code when deleting
 Vlan

On 17-10-12 02:12 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 12/10/17 21:07, Roman Mashak wrote:

>> For example, if you attempt to delete a non-existing vlan on a port,
>> the current code succeeds and also sends event :
>>
>> rtnetlink_rcv_msg
>>      rtnl_bridge_dellink
>>         br_dellink
>>            br_afspec
>>               br_vlan_info
>>
>> int br_dellink(..)
>> {
>>    ...
>>    err = br_afspec()
>>    if (err == 0)
>>        br_ifinfo_notify(RTM_NEWLINK, p);
>> }
>>
>> This is misleading, so a proper errcode has to be produced.
>>
>



> True, but you also change the expected behaviour because now a user can
> clear all vlans with one request (1 - 4094), and after the change that
> will fail with a partial delete if some vlan was missing.
> 

The issue is more subtle (per Roman above):
Try to delete a vlan (that doesnt  exist).
1) It says "success".
2) Worse: Another process listening (bridge monitor?) gets an _event_
  that  the vlan has been deleted (when it never existed in the first
  place).

> This has been the behaviour forever and some script might depend on it.
> Also IMO, and as David also mentioned, doing a partial delete is not good.
>

I think this is a bug (especially the event part).

cheers,
jamal